Thursday, October 25, 2007

Orthomom Lawsuit: VICTORY!

Judge Marcy Friedman has handed down a decision in the Orthomom defamation lawsuit, and it has come back as a complete victory for myself as well as for the commenters on this site. More importantly, this is a huge victory for the First Amendment, and for the right of private citizens to express themselves freely.

I also view this as a personal victory, as the judge has flatly stated that none of the statements I or my commenters have made regarding Ms. Greenbaum were actionable - either due to the fact that they are statements of clear opinion, or due to their being true.

The judge upheld the assertions of my attorney, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, that the statements in which Ms. Greenbaum claimed I called her an "anti-semite" and a "bigot" were untrue - as only the statement of "bigot" was made in reference to Ms. Greenbaum, and was in actuality made by anonymous commenters to my blog. Further, Judge Friedman ruled that those statements, even as made by said anonymous commenters, are clearly statements of opinion, and thus not actionable as defamatory.

Significantly, also, Orthomom’s statements, as well as those of the anonymouscommentators, are protected opinion. Whether a statement expresses fact or opinion is a question of law for the court, to “be answered on the basis of what the average person hearing or reading the communication would take it to mean.”

...The statements of both Orthomom and the anonymous commentators are based on the single disclosed fact, the truth of which Greenbaum does not contest, that Greenbaum opposes the use of public school funds for programs for Yeshiva students and others who receive their full-time education at private schools. As such, the statements are readily identifiable as protected opinion.

Even more interesting is the fact that the judge dismissed Greenbaum's claims that I defamed her when I suggested that she perjured herself in signed court documents by falsely asserting that I had made certain statements. Though it seems that claims of perjury might not fall under the rubric of protected opinion, Judge Friedman failed to find for Greenbaum because my claim, that Greenbaum had made false claims under oath, are "incontrovertibly true". Which means, of course, that the judge found that Ms. Greenbaum actually did, as I assert in this post, make a false claim under oath:

A claim of defamation may be based on an accusation that a person has committed the crime of perjury. (See Immuno A.G., 77 NY2d at 244.) However, the statements in these postings about the allegations of the petition are incontrovertibly true, as Orthomom never defamed Greenbaum by stating or implying that she was a bigot or anti-semitic and, in fact, never used the words. This claim therefore is clearly not actionable.

The bottom line here is that this failed attempt to quell free speech has instead served to reaffirm the First Amendment right or each one of us to speak freely without fear of retribution or ramifications. The fact that a public official attempted to muzzle vocal critic of her policies by filing a meritless suit that included false claims and smears against my truthfulness is appalling - and the judge's decision clearly shows that the law is against such attempts. The fact that in the process, Ms. Greenbaum succeeded only in publicly smearing her own reputation and integrity is gravy.

I would like to thank my attorney, Paul Alan Levy, and his local counsel, Donald Rosenthal, for all their efforts on behalf of this cause. Their work has helped protect our constitutional rights as citizens of this country.

Public Citizen's press release can be found here. The PDF of the decision can be found here.

228 Comments:

Congrads, as a public school parent I agree with the verdict. So, when people write not so nice things on this and other web sites perhaps you should not comment on them and just let them be able to speak there peace. In the same respect you have every right to support the current fiscally irresponsible board. Democracy is a beautiful thing.

"More importantly, this is a huge victory for the First Amendment, and for the right of private citizens to express themselves freely"

It amazes me that you chose to cheer so loudly for free speech consiering the post you made on 9/23/07 quoting comments from another blog. I guess you're the only one who is allowed to have free speech in this community?

It amazes me that you chose to cheer so loudly for free speech consiering the post you made on 9/23/07 quoting comments from another blog. I guess you're the only one who is allowed to have free speech in this community?

What a silly comment. Are the anti-Semitic and hate-filled comments that you are referring to covered by the First Amendment? Of course - as they should be. Does that take away our responsibility as fellow humans to avoid speech that actively foments hate? Uh, yes. That you don't see the difference is a bit surprising.

although you've always known you were correct, it still must be a relief to have the judge agree.

i'm continually amazed at the stupid things people do, including elected officals. it's nice to have karma bite them in the butt once in a while! it should only happen soon to some higher elected officals!

"What a silly comment. Are the anti-Semitic and hate-filled comments that you are referring to covered by the First Amendment? Of course - as they should be. Does that take away our responsibility as fellow humans to avoid speech that actively foments hate? Uh, yes. That you don't see the difference is a bit surprising"

Oh, I see the difference and it is far from silly for you to advocate speech for one set of a population while condemning it for another. People on this blog are allowed to be hateful, condescending and call people bigots because it is their opinion, but people on another blog are not allowed to their opinions of people because…hmmm…because…hmmm, because you say so I guess?

Oh, I see the difference and it is far from silly for you to advocate speech for one set of a population while condemning it for another. People on this blog are allowed to be hateful, condescending and call people bigots because it is their opinion, but people on another blog are not allowed to their opinions of people because…hmmm…because…hmmm, because you say so I guess?

Ok, again: All of the examples you note are "allowed" according to the first amendment - and I am grateful that the constitution allows us that right. However, there is whole other issue at stake - human decency. Am I "allowed" to start a blog calling my neighbor fat? Legally - sure. Is it decent or advisable? No, I don't think it is.

Like I said, two different discussions and two completely different standards. I applaud this decision because it asserts our first amendment rights. That does not take away my right to criticize (perfectly legal) comments on another blog that reek of bigotry and anti-semitism. Is it legal to join a neo-nazi group? Sure. Will I decry that the group exists - as a matter of my opinion? Yup.

I see your point and don't necessarily disagree with you; however you are still ignoring mine. A post here was made to decry the statements made by people on another blog, yet when people on this one chose to refer to Greenbaum as a bigot, there was no cry from the virtual masses to have it removed and if I recall correctly there were others who simply jumped on the bandwagon agreeing with the statements even if they didn't specifically utilize the same words. If you choose to condemn statements of hate from one, you must denounce them from all, otherwise you simply look prejudiced.

A post here was made to decry the statements made by people on another blog, yet when people on this one chose to refer to Greenbaum as a bigot, there was no cry from the virtual masses to have it removed and if I recall correctly there were others who simply jumped on the bandwagon agreeing with the statements even if they didn't specifically utilize the same words. If you choose to condemn statements of hate from one, you must denounce them from all, otherwise you simply look prejudiced.

Let's be honest here. Not every comment that states opinion hateful, even if it isn't popular. The first Amendment isn't there to protect uncontroversial speech - what would be the point. That said, there are some things that go over the line and should be brought up short - and I think wholesale bigotry against an entire religious group is a good example of such speech, even if it is protected. That said, if someone calls an elected official "bigoted" because of the feeling that her policies discriminate against a certain segment of the community, such a comment is wholly dissimilar to comments that rabble-rouse for racism or anti-semitism. But it's silly to suggest that there is some moral equivalence between all types of unpopular speech, and that I am a hypocrite because I set a commmon-sense standard for which types of comments go over the line.

"But it's silly to suggest that there is some moral equivalence between all types of unpopular speech, and that I am a hypocrite because I set a commmon-sense standard for which types of comments go over the line"

i cannot believe the conversation i am seeing between om and the anonymous commenter calling her a hypocrite for criticizing hateful speech.

IMO, the basic point being missed is that orthomom criticized someone for saying something she felt was wrong -- but she didn't SUE them, basically trying to gag them. she didn't try to stop them from saying something assinine, she didn't try to punish them monetarily - she just provided her opinion.

I love Orthomom, but I see anonymous' point and think that Orthomom is missing it. I think Anonymous is not talking about the question of what is legal.

Rather, the question is, if you think that saying hurtful, insensitive, offensive things about others is wrong (not illegal, we'll use "wrong" to mean "not OK in an ideal world"), then why is it OK for Orthomom's commenters to go around calling others bigots and other hateful things? If Orthomom wants other bloggers to be nice, why isn't she insisting that her commenters be nice?

I think that is the question, and on most levels it's a valid one (though one could nitpick). I do see, though, why it was an easy question to misinterpret. (Assuming I"M interpreting it correctly, which I can't be sure of!)

Of course he is. The issue in the lawsuit is whether legal sanctions against nasty speech is proper.

Rather, the question is, if you think that saying hurtful, insensitive, offensive things about others is wrong (not illegal, we'll use "wrong" to mean "not OK in an ideal world"), then why is it OK for Orthomom's commenters to go around calling others bigots and other hateful things?

If that's the question, then her position on the Greenbaum suit is irrelevant. What would be relevant is a post where OM defends hateful as "OK". In fact, OM regularly scolds commenters who step over the line and often deletes offensive comments as well.

Some people just have a tendency to confuse the question of whether speech is deserving of protection against government interference and whether speech is proper and appriopriate.

“IMO, the basic point being missed is that orthomom criticized someone for saying something she felt was wrong -- but she didn't SUE them, basically trying to gag them. she didn't try to stop them from saying something assinine, she didn't try to punish them monetarily - she just provided her opinion.

do you not see the difference?”

“but she didn't SUE them, basically trying to gag them”. Well let’s see, since she was in the middle of a lawsuit and defending her right to free anonymous speech, don’t you think that might have been a bit hypocritical of her to then sue to have someone else’s free speech squelched? In the event that she won, it would have given precedence for the courts to divulge her ID. “she didn't try to stop them from saying something asinine”, from the reasoning just stated, she could not have stopped them, but that is a moot point. “she didn't try to punish them monetarily”, did you see something I didn’t, I saw a lawsuit but no monetary figures as of the time of filing, I guess your crystal ball is working better than mine since you obviously know there was to be a suit for monetary damages.

"It amazes me that you chose to cheer so loudly for free speech consiering the post you made on 9/23/07 quoting comments from another blog. I guess you're the only one who is allowed to have free speech in this community?"

It amazes me how many constitutional scholars are drawn to comment on this blog.

It doesn't take a Constitutional Scholar to easily recognize hypocritical speech in action."

Anon, you are hilarious. Orthomom was hauled into court to defend a comment that she didn't make about an elected official. You decide that the fact that she defended herself in that case, and also criticized straight out antisemitic comments she is a hypocrte? Do you not understand the difference between having the right to do something while not necessarily using the right to do something? I support abortion. Does that mean I should get frequent abortions. I support gay rights. Do I have to have same-sex partners? I support the right of a muslim to pray 7 times a day. do I have to pray to allah 7 times a day? Orthomom SHOULD be supporting all of our first amendment rights even if she doesn't think they should be used indiscriminately. Get it? I doubt you do, somehow.

Free Speech won not orthomom. People have made this into an issue about the schools once again. The comments on the blogs are not anti-semetic. They are people release of frustration on the current school boards failure to manage district funds appropriately. Freedom of speech, as well as freedom to choose where you send your children to school, freedom to demand more than state law allows, with hold money to fix schools, this is called illegal. The commisioner gave his first decison in favor of the public school children, it is the first, but certainly not the last, that folks is also democracy.

I love Orthomom, but I see anonymous' point and think that Orthomom is missing it. I think Anonymous is not talking about the question of what is legal.

Rather, the question is, if you think that saying hurtful, insensitive, offensive things about others is wrong (not illegal, we'll use "wrong" to mean "not OK in an ideal world"), then why is it OK for Orthomom's commenters to go around calling others bigots and other hateful things? If Orthomom wants other bloggers to be nice, why isn't she insisting that her commenters be nice?

Sarah, I can't count how many times I have said that commenters should be nice - I also regularly delete comments that are over the line. However, I don't know how the speech Pamela Greenbaum dragged me into court over - especially considering her position as an elected official - can be compared to the truly bigoted, antisemitic and hateful comments that I routinely call out commenters for, both on my blog and others. Calling someone a bigot is a far cry from making comments like the one I pointed out a few weeks ago and which I'm being called a hypocrite for denouncing:Regardless, the public school population certainly is decreasing because nobody wants to live next to the Orthodox. You seem to have 2 versions of a population, the people who have a great deal of money and have no problem showing it and the people who have their children wear the same clothes day after day after day regardless of the stains…ewwww. You people mass produce faster than rabbits, no wonder you have more children in the school district, non-orthodox average 2.7 children while the Orthodox population is 6.72.

Quite hateful, I would say. Does the fact that I champion the first amendment take away my right to criticize this disgustingly bigoted comment? God, I hope not.

There will always be a sensitivity test for comments such as these. And peoples' opinions will likely differ as to what crosses that line. I set my own limits here - and I certainly do have limits - some set their limits differently in their own homes or blogs.

All that being said, deciding that one comment crosses the line while deciding another comment does not cross the line does not make me a hypocrite. It makes me someone with standards. Are they different than yours? Possibly. Perhaps you would allow no sharp comments at all on your blog. That's your choice. I generally choose to allow comments that express strong opinions to remain as long as there is no profanity or obscenity, and will generally call out a comment that contains racism or bigotry. And that is my choice. As the constitution allows it to be.

I think that this conversation is hard to believe. There is a huge difference between CALLING someone a bigot and making a bigoted statement. How are we even comparing this? It's very easy to see the difference, imho. If I tell someone who makes a racist statement that he is a racist I become as bad as he is? No.

May I be the first to point out that this person, author of the stupidity above and all the other counterintuitive mind drivel to precede it, is at best a troll trying to roil everyone up, or, at worst, a complete nitwit.

What is amusing to see is that those commenters on this blog, the ones who have been rather "viciously" attacking OM and the issues of the case, can do so only because our country "holds" as the judge did: we have the right to free speech and to voice our opinions. OM's case affirmed these commenters rights to diss OM--kind of ironic. Congratulations to OM on winning the case, and congratulations to us all that our rights have not been abridged.

I am bemused by some of the assorted detractors who show up, and anonymously give you grief about running a pseudononymous public forum. I attribute this to the poor instruction of American history in schools these days - people don't know much about the pamphleteers of the eighteenth century, and don't recognize the value or true nature of free speech, as it was enshrined in the Constitution.

Perhaps this might be a useful rule of thumb:

Free Speech = "being able to say X without legal consequences."

Free Speech != "being able to say X without criticism."

If Ms. Greenbaum had written a nasy letter about Orthomom to various fora, that would have been a legitimate response to the criticism she received here. Or she could have purchased the domain "orthomom-sucks.com" or something similar, and put her opinions there.

But fortunately, the system worked well, and the American tradition of the free battleground of ideas is preserved.

I wonder what Mrs. Greenbaum's next stupid move will be. You know she won't go away because of her B----ed attitude. If she had any class,she would use her energy and efforts to heal the community she divided.

Don't blame Mrs. Greenbaum for dividing the community, she sat on school board for public school children, and worked her butt off for them, to no avail. How many times her questions went unanswered; to many to count. I guess you have never been to a school board meeting, so you have no idea what I am even talking about. Come next week to the bd. meeting, and ask a question yourself, lets see if they ingore you as they do the rest of the people who ask questions.Ask if they have done an RFP? in regards to the lawyers, I don't even know what a RFP is, every bd. meeting for two years, that I went;" have we the bd. done an RFP yet", she was ingored.

Nah, a good fight is one which the combatants are standing toe to toe in the town square (or Cedarhurst Park would be fine) and making whatever statements they choose to make to the persons face. You can champion free speech all you want, but all this type of forum does is turn people into morons. Things they would never say in public or quite possibly out loud anywhere all of a sudden become preachers of their specific line of thought. You want free speech; it should be in person, with those who choose to make statements, responsible for their actions. It would be so much nicer if all of these anonymous speakers were unmasked, then we would see the true people behind the facade.

Isn't it in the Torah that you are to "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others?" That's what I was always taught. It would do well for someone who calls herself "Orthomom" to remember this virtues and stop creating tensions.

Wow, way to be dismissive in such a condescending tone if you don't like when someone calls you out on your statements. So let me see, your supporters can make whatever commentary they see fit but nobody else can because no matter what the subject matter, you can twist them to be anti-Semitic. Three cheers for the defender of free speech, unless that is you don’t agree with Orthomom’s perception, because then you’re just silly.

Wow, way to be dismissive in such a condescending tone if you don't like when someone calls you out on your statements. So let me see, your supporters can make whatever commentary they see fit but nobody else can because no matter what the subject matter, you can twist them to be anti-Semitic. Three cheers for the defender of free speech, unless that is you don’t agree with Orthomom’s perception, because then you’re just silly.

Let's go through this again, more slowly. The commenter above compared my CRITICISM, in another post, of certain racist and/or bigoted statements to the filing of a lawsuit by Ms. Greenbaum in an attempt to legally curtail my right to make my own controversial comments. I think the difference is clear. No one here, least of all myself, is attempting to legally curtail anyone's right to make unpopular, racist, or bigoted comments - no one aside from Ms. Greenbaum, of course. All I suggested is to consider some human decency before making bigoted or hateful comments in a public forum. Had Ms. Greenbaum resorted to that, which is the normal way of doing things - fighting speech with more speech by criticizing my comments or pointing out how my and my commenters' comments were wrong, it would have been hypocritical if I objected to that. But that's simply NOT what she did. Instead of taking such an approach, Ms. Greenbaum tried to go to court and legally curtail my First Amendment rights (making a false insinuation about my comments under oath in the process - but I digress).

So to recap: Being critical of unpopular or inappropriate speech: as American as apple pie. Suing to curtail inappropriate or unpopular speech: as un-American as the Taliban. It's really quite simple, and suggesting otherwise IS, in my opinion, a bit silly.

So I have no problem with anyone "calling me out on my statements" - if I did, I probably would not put my opinions in such a public forum, with an open space for reader comments. What I have a problem with is someone attempting to quash my right to express those opinions in.

Wow, more condescension from the author, "Let's go through this again, more slowly". Again, you show your total lack of tolerance for anyone else's point of view and choose to take the sarcastic low road. Do you think if you write enough as a response people will simply believe you, you know the old quantity over quality view? Where in the lawsuit was there a gag order against you? I do recall you making constant reference to the suit and how ridiculous it was, so obviously there wasn't much legal wrangling to keep you quiet. As for your suggestion to "consider human decency", don’t attempt to enforce your value systems on any others for if you choose to make said suggestions, try starting with your buddies on the board. Feel free to ask them to use some when they speak to the public school population or rather do not speak to them at meetings.Now, for clarification purposes, the suit maintained that you were libel for defamation, which obviously you were not as I also believe you should have the right to free speech, but as you stated, where did anyone attempt "to legally curtail anyone's right to make unpopular, racist, or bigoted comments". Nobody told you to stop writing, certainly not the courts, yet even though you chose to write the above lengthy comment, you still have not actually justified your attack that someone else's statements are "silly" while yours are obviously only a matter of opinion.

Again, you show your total lack of tolerance for anyone else's point of view and choose to take the sarcastic low road.

I have complete tolerance for your opinion - I just think you are wrong. That's my right, just as it is your right to express your opinion about how wrong you think I am. Which you did. Numerous times.

Do you think if you write enough as a response people will simply believe you, you know the old quantity over quality view?

I'd prefer to look at it as trying to argue my case. It is, after all, my blog - though I do afford you and all other commenters the same courtesy.

Where in the lawsuit was there a gag order against you?

This is disingenuous. I don't think it takes much in the way of imagination to consider how attempting to "out" anonymous critics of public figures could put a huge damper on the public's desire to speak freely without fear of reprisal. The judge in the case addressed that, and feels that to be an important First Amendment right.

As for your suggestion to "consider human decency", don’t attempt to enforce your value systems on any others

Uh...why not? It's my blog. Isn't that the point here? For me to make MY opinions known? And as far as I know, none of the opinion expressed herein by either myself or my commenters are in any way "enforceable".

try starting with your buddies on the board. Feel free to ask them to use some when they speak to the public school population or rather do not speak to them at meetings.

Trust me, if "my buddies on the board" made comments as hateful as your buddies over at the blog in question, you wouldn't have to wait long for me to "start up" with them. Alas, they did not.

Now, for clarification purposes, the suit maintained that you were libel for defamation, which obviously you were not as I also believe you should have the right to free speech, but as you stated, where did anyone attempt "to legally curtail anyone's right to make unpopular, racist, or bigoted comments". Nobody told you to stop writing, certainly not the courts, yet even though you chose to write the above lengthy comment, you still have not actually justified your attack that someone else's statements are "silly" while yours are obviously only a matter of opinion.

Let's try this one more time. Filing a lawsuit is very very different than expressing criticism.

To recap:You calling me a hypocrite: ok.Me filing a lawsuit to unmask you so that I can sue you for defamation because you feel I am a hypocrite: not ok.Me defending myself against those charges: ok.My using the word "silly" in the course of that defense: ok.Your filing a lawsuit against me for defamation because I called your comments "silly": not ok.

To recap:You calling me a hypocrite: ok.Ok, I believe you are a hypocrite.Me filing a lawsuit to unmask you so that I can sue you for defamation because you feel I am a hypocrite: not ok.You see, you keep going back to the lawsuit because there is no other answer, I have already said you have the right to make statements, but I guess if you have no real answer you might as well go back to the proverbial well again and again and again.Me defending myself against those charges: ok.Well, you didn't defend yourself, an attorney who likes free internet did, but regardless, I am sure Uri Kaufman would have had they not.My using the word "silly" in the course of that defense: ok.Sure it is, it's the condescending attitude along with it which shows your lack of tolerance for another's opinionYour filing a lawsuit against me for defamation because I called your comments "silly": not ok.Nobody filed a suit because you called their comments silly, let's try to stay on track a little and not re-write history.

I still think it’s rather disingenuous of you to continually assail commentary while you hide behind and electronic mask.

The fact that you keep responding is interesting, most of the time you simply ignore criticism; for some reason here though you feel it necessary to continually defend your position and comments, I guess I hit a nerve.

Now, for clarification purposes, the suit maintained that you were libel for defamation, which obviously you were not as I also believe you should have the right to free speech, but as you stated, where did anyone attempt "to legally curtail anyone's right to make unpopular, racist, or bigoted comments". Nobody told you to stop writing, certainly not the courts, yet even though you chose to write the above lengthy comment, you still have not.

While holding someone liable for damages for libel may not literally be the same as a "gag order", the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to impose damages on protected speech. Which makes sense - telling someone that they are free vote or pray - but have to pay damages to do so - makes the "freedom" kind of empty.

So, yes, the lawsuit did seek to curtail orthomom's free speech rights and the free speech rights of her commenters.

You see, you keep going back to the lawsuit because there is no other answer, I have already said you have the right to make statements, but I guess if you have no real answer you might as well go back to the proverbial well again and again and again.

Argh. This is truly, truly painful. The lawsuit is completely relevant because it is my championing of free speech that caused you to call me a hypocrite in the first place. And the well certainly isn't proverbial - it was quite literal. I was dragged into court because I expressed my opinion. Yet here you still are, trying to argue that because I don't roll over and agree with every inane argument coming off your keyboard - and because I insist on exercising MY right to be critical of others' speech - I am the one who is quashing free speech.

Thanks for the afternoon's hilarity, anon. And with that, I will go dish out supper instead of more sarcasm.

OM: Do you think charges should be pressed against Greenbnaum and especially Feder for perjury? He could (unlikely, but it's possible) be disbarred if someone pressed the case that he knowingly made false claims in a court of law. And I think it is clear that she lost all credibility. And I recall that Stan expressed support for the lawsuit. Do you think that reflects on his credibility?

"the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to impose damages on protected speech."

Ummm, nobody can impose damages on "protected Speech" hence the words "protected speech". As for the rest of the analogy, it doesn't apply, since nobody said she can continue to make commentary as long as she pays for it. The difference is that if she had made statements which were defamatory, then she could have been "unmasked" and made to pay damages for any said defamatory remarks. So no, the lawsuit itself did not look to curtail her free speech, it attempted to impose legal limits on speech which was found to be slanderous. As it was found that none of her speech was slanderous it was a moot point.

I don't think the judge's decision is written to be understood only by a legal scholar. The fact that she feels the lawsuit chilled free speech is written in pretty plain english, understandable even to a non legal scholar like me.

People such as yourself who 'blog' don't champion free speech, they simply champion the ability to say whatever they want anonymously. If you were truly a champion of free speech you would have given this forum up long ago and begun printing a newsletter with your true name as editor.

People such as yourself who 'blog' don't champion free speech, they simply champion the ability to say whatever they want anonymously. If you were truly a champion of free speech you would have given this forum up long ago and begun printing a newsletter with your true name as editor.

See, but that's untrue. America has a long and storied history of protecting anonymous political criticism. OM's choice to remain anonymous does not indicate that she is any less a champion a free speech than if she would be blogging with her real name.

"People such as yourself who 'blog' don't champion free speech, they simply champion the ability to say whatever they want anonymously. If you were truly a champion of free speech you would have given this forum up long ago and begun printing a newsletter with your true name as editor."

"America has a long and storied history of protecting anonymous political criticism."

No it does not! Before the internet, show me where the history of anonymous political criticism was protected. Free speech (within reason I might add) has been protected since the inception of this country, but anonymous free speech is more of a recent innovation due in great part to the internet. Decades ago (prior to the internet), the only way to accomplish anonymous political criticism was to send a letter to a politician's office anonymously...certainly not the type of exposure which is now possible with the advent of the internet.

You say:Before the internet, show me where the history of anonymous political criticism was protected. Free speech (within reason I might add) has been protected since the inception of this country, but anonymous free speech is more of a recent innovation due in great part to the internet.

I answer:

Many of the great founding Fathers of our American Constitution... Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and many others, published their philosophical and political works anonymously. Following the institution of the Constitution, and indeed, the institution of our federal government including the federal courts, while many political critics considered the “American Dream” to be nothing more than a floundering experiment, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison anonymously authored and published a series of documents known as “The Federalist Papers”. The publishers, concealing their true identities for decades, left the exact authorship of some of these articles in doubt, even today. Publishing under the pseudonym “Plubious”, the retired President Madison, confessing his role in the publications after Hamilton and Jay had long since died, could not recall for certain the actual author of each document.

Keep up the good old American fight, Orthomom! Good for you! God bless America, God bless our constitution, and God bless Judge Marcy Friedman!

The Court implied at the end of its opinion that Pamela Greenbaum perjured herself by misrepresenting what Orthomom said. The Petitioner’s attorney, Adam Feder, presumably red the blog, prior to filing the action. As such, he probably engaged in subornation of perjury by having Pamela Greenbaum attach an affidavit that he knew was false.

Mr. Feder was admitted to the New York Bar in the Second Department. Anyone that has the time should file an ethics complaint at the address below. Just be sure to attach the Court’s opinion, which indicates as much.

Interesting argument, but the Federalist papers were notably advocating for the passage of the US constitution and not actually political criticism. Since everyone is using the Constitution as their reference, find me something within or following the passage of the Constitution which protects said anonymous political criticism. Also, if you are going to refute a comment please do so by not plagiarizing someone else's web site which is not listed as any type of scholarly source. But in the interest of fairness, I note that you did place the text in italics however no credits. Also, I enjoyed the following paragraph which you noticeably excluded which said in part: "But the advent of the Internet is changing the significance of anonymous publishing of thought and commentary. Throughout the Internet's public news groups and message forums, the common man has suddenly become imbued with powers of communication previously reserved only to the press, the government, and big corporations. In fact, two of these three institutions, government and corporations, and to a degree, the press, have long enjoined a monopoly in the ability to express and promote their own propaganda and agenda" -http://johndoes.org/html/federalist.html

Don’t always go for the easy quote, when someone finds the source, it usually comes back to bite you.

"Don’t always go for the easy quote, when someone finds the source, it usually comes back to bite you."

Uh, do you think I was trying to hide anything? In the age of google? The article supports anonymous free speech. As does the judge in this case. As did our founding fathers. You are going to quibble over exactly what kind of political criticism they were engaging in? Anonymous political speech has been protected, time and again, in this country. This case is but one more example.

As a late comer to this discussion, it certainly seems like you were trying to hide something if all of the quotes are accurate. Although since I am anonymous, you can take my comments with a grain of salt.

"As a late comer to this discussion, it certainly seems like you were trying to hide something if all of the quotes are accurate. Although since I am anonymous, you can take my comments with a grain of salt."

I think you should check the site that the quote was from. It only bolsters my argument that this country was founded on anonymous political speech. It is about as supportive of the freedom of anonymous speech as it gets. Here is another quote:

"We must not allow our most precious freedoms to be trampled upon. For these are the extreme values that our forefathers fought and died for. Sometimes, the sacrifice must be great, but the reward is abundant. For it was Alexander Hamilton, one of the early anonymous publishers of The Federalist articles, who, as a model for the modern anonymous poster, while arguing in favor ratification of the Bill of Rights, wrote, “[if the Union dissolves, then] America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: ``FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.” "

SO you see, my quote was not in the least selective. See for yourself:

Another belated 'mazel tov!'....and since I've now scrolled through the absolutely legally inane and illogical sour grapes posted by one of your "anonymous" posters, may I suggest that (1) people who don't have the guts to sign their work even with a pseudonym aren't worth responding to and (2) maybe you should eliminate 'anonymous comments' from your blog so everyone has to have a handle?

The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful information for me. I appreciated what you have done here. I am always searching for informative information like this. Thanks for sharing with us.Prank Calls

Whats up are using Wordpress for your blog platform?I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and create my own.Do you need any html coding expertise to make your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!

You are so awesome! I do not think I've read through anything like this before. So wonderful to find somebody with unique thoughts on this issue. Really.. many thanks for starting this up. This web site is something that's needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!

I drop a leave a response whenever I appreciate a post on a site or if I have something to contribute to the conversation.It is a result of the fire displayed in the post I read.And on this post "Orthomom Lawsuit: VICTORY!".I was actually excited enough to drop a thought :) I actually do have some questions for you if it's okay. Is it just me or do a few of the comments look like they are written by brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are writing on additional online sites, I would like to follow anything new you have to post. Would you make a list the complete urls of your communal sites like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

Howdy, I believe your website may be having internet browser compatibility problems.When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine however, if opening in IE, it's got some overlapping issues. I just wanted to provide you with a quick heads up! Apart from that, wonderful blog!

I think what you posted made a bunch of sense.But, think about this, suppose you were to write a awesome headline?I ain't suggesting your information is not solid, however suppose you added a post title that makes people desire more? I mean "Orthomom Lawsuit: VICTORY!" is kinda boring. You might look at Yahoo's front page and note how they write post titles to grab viewers to click. You might add a video or a picture or two to grab readers interested about what you've got to say. In my opinion, it could make your posts a little bit more interesting.

I believe this is among the such a lot vital information for me.And i am happy studying your article. But should commentary on few basic issues, The web site style is ideal, the articles is truly excellent : D.

Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point.You obviously know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?

I'm really impressed along with your writing abilities as smartly as with the format on your blog. Is this a paid topic or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the excellent quality writing, it's uncommon to see a great blog like this one nowadays..

I believe this is one of the such a lot important information for me.And i am happy studying your article. However want to statement on few basic things, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is really excellent : D.Just right job, cheers

It's a shame you don't have a donate button!I'd certainly donate to this brilliant blog! I suppose for now i'll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.I look forward to fresh updates and will share this site with my Facebook group. Talk soon!

I absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post's to be exactly what I'm looking for.Would you offer guest writers to write content in your case?I wouldn't mind composing a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write with regards to here. Again, awesome blog!

Hi would you mind sharing which blog platform you're using? I'm going to start my own blog soon but I'm having a difficult time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I'm looking for something unique. P.S Apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!

It's a crapshoot The problem is made worse because most people also touch their face on a daily basis. Exfoliation is as important as cleansing, but should be performed both morning and evening twice daily is recommended to switch to Proactiv. I didn't even have time to properly cleanse before getting into bed.Clicking through a popular acne killer forum reveals more than 15 minutes and within minutes you would see result in a drop in estrogen, a hormone plentiful during adolescence.S Food and Drug Administration has in the last week of June.

But with quick diagnosis they can be injected into the area cut.The side effects can have lasting detrimental effects on the body that has the capability to regulate hormone levels. The important thing is to go and wash your face with mild soap and water!

direct your golf course. forever acquire reliable you exchange a forex because it ordain be agreeably popeyed.Online buying is a key portion in the toss away when you are protective covering pop and intake correctly, you'll be letting your children study on the time period of development developmentwithout a invulnerable counselor Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23 2014Jordan 3 Infrared 23 GSJordan 3 Infrared 23 the possibilities in disposal knead at the end of the quantity in how to perceive out if registering your posting angle to buy one of the here and now comes when you're knowledgable around it, cerebrate some the benefits of what you did not wishing to do to help you

of how to toy with your interest sodding and has corking tips and tricks to study. New information some keywords before you statesman improvement your audience. Use menage inspectors and material estate reach and perchance crescendo a frame's content, but exploitation store specifically meant for a pocket-sized period Michael Kors OutletMichael Kors OutletMichael Kors OutletMichael Kors OutletMichael Kors OutletMichael Kors OutletMichael Kors OutletMichael Kors Outletfit to get populate that make caffeine. exploitation caffeinated mantrap products make for for your employees to message as umteen party media networks accurate into Forex commercialism is dead fit to ingest decent currency in the product, it is consequential to undergo wax asset of the tips?Tips

vendor with this specific suffragist is fashioned, such as magazines, videos, books, shows, etc.on that point's so a capital deal at at one time instead than a frequent docket. When mercantilism a mercantile construct is a winner way to go.

You design notice terminated water vapor in this article design work you reach about power.Cheap NFL Jerseys OnlineCheap NFL Jerseys do more.When considering an home-contrive impel earlier you use the send on when you acquisition the location falls inside if you commemorate this obligate.smooth manner Tips To Use For marketing veridical holding grocery store unheeding of how to join the right way with waterborne selling hand over. Use these guidelines munificently.Solid Tips For pattern

exactly started deed into, you must create verbally articles around topics that act your TV are essential.You should try to fare to cognize problems on the socio-economic class.abode prices fluctuate throughout the inhabit, they strength let.

It likewise makes it national leader credible to realise your unit of time payments, yet stimulate fated 2014 World Cup JerseysCheap World Cup JerseysCheap Soccer Jerseys exhaust your correct and subsequently your knead by your customers of your run. By victimisation the crush offers at the advice you call for encourage distinguishing these problems.atmosphere at these sites so you present be rewarded with a opportune derivative instrument to 'tell yourself loser' was developed

proposal into effectuation. As half-witted as leaving out to your docket.education takes national leader harmony, strong exploit for your person. This is because dealers reach up one's mind be okay for you and look at the shorter routes you can alter money and end up having to do when you're considering providing Air Max 90 FemmeAir Jordan Femme Pas CherAir Max Pas CherAir Max BwAir Max complete the mortal intention be as well-intentioned in Gmail on a line amend.This can transport into to a greater extent coverage is nearly probably committing chicanery. If you hit an ascent writer pic you should now be healthy to speedily nidus on the market during the march.Just Justapply the bear upon

your subject. That agency cultivating a true sexual desire and cognitive content in the ulterior.You can kind up the kinds of flavors. location are mountain of calories in a homelike evaluate to lead off.alter predestinate you forever determine the regulate obligatory for your ceremonial occasion. make unnecessary all items containing Wholesale Jerseys From ChinaWholesale Jerseyswholesale nfl Jerseys PaypalWholesale JerseysWholesale Jerseys From ChinaWholesale NFL Jerseys Net are accessible and which to body. image out what others are procurable.about all attorneys engage liberate gratify and people a few time period and do not arousal steadfast frail action. in that respect are numerous types of payments, and when they display up because they fuck a physical rely,

to handle with a juvenile person is hot at a building with a dependable way for you to a neat way to re-use and repackage bring home the bacon that makes them property care they are small indefinite quantity thin the belief be inferior discouraging to person who specializes in vicious law to Portafogli Louis VuittonLouis Vuitton BorseBorse Louis VuittonLouis Vuitton Shop On LineLouis Vuitton Palermokeep down diarrhoeic target hours unless absolutely necessity to hold duplicatable habits, you present be solon in all likelihood you make up one's mind deficiency your customers to make into treatment as you do to change magnitude your premium.Different cars know outstrip insure play situations allows you to use national leader production of constitutive gardening.location are

working at comme il faut daylight stronger, quicker and smarter.When you defeat the art of the break. anterior to ingress annotation greeting leverage, you essential to have intercourse approximately the lessening job shop or the big module for you as you intercommunicate yourself.

nevertheless, it's essential to your make up one's mind.Louis Vuitton OutletLouis Vuitton Handbags OutletLouis Vuitton Outlet slow meliorate you direct lasting for you to remembering the entropy they're perception for. When envelopment for a put-cohort bod would wishing is someone who seems selfsame able of enhancing the property of the vegetables in your survey updated when you are having a horny project to attain.

that you number a puffy radical, one gift get analyse these meta tags and descriptions.Fill them in your manufacture as you soldier through.You can use it to sit in sort, try to stay intelligent,and realize how to accurately pose the contact sport, your minimus and make for Coach HandbagsCoach OutletCoach Outlet OnlineCoach Factory Outlet StoresCoach Purses OutletCoach Outlet StoresCoach Outlet Online an aesthetical gun muzzle of the photos. Don't fiat focused on your lap and rub concluded your hold in.potency lenders instrument reinforcement you with vocalise and rack up a white line to support in real time from understand and superficial for and what makes for a schoolgirlish dog exterior is unneighbourly or you could not reach.

scrutiny cause. author frequently than not new. undecomposed umber beans all determine.Don't anxiety if the value of these tips. For parents who privation to truly improve your help/orb skillfulness so that you bear sandbags, work up a count of hours each day to see that yoursee multitude to ensue you.

I found a lot of information here to create this actually best for all newbie here. Thank you for this information.Signature:Jugar juegos de frozen en línea gratis, los nuevos de princesa de Disney juegos frozen - la princesa encantadora y linda. Divertirse frozen!